With all the national publicity about the world’s first parent trigger in Adelanto, California, you would think someone might have noticed that the new charter is not the first charter in this town.
Only a little more than a year ago, the Adelanto Charter Academy had to close because of multiple operational and fiscal problems. The biggest problem was that the operators of the charter were involved in questionable self-dealing.
As the local newspaper put it, “The Sentinel has learned that much of the academy’s academic imperative was suborned to the mercenary intent of those involved at the school, shortchanging the educational mission.
“While charter schools are by law non-profit entities, it appears that those involved with the school in some cases formed for-profit companies that were devoted to providing the charter academy with materials, ranging from furniture to computers to visual aids to books to writing materials that were sold at inflated prices.”
It gets worse. Read the article.
How soon we forget.
So now, with the votes of only 50 parents in a school enrolling more than 600 children, the charter idea gets another run in Adelanto.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“Charter schools are normally founded by teachers, parents, or activists who feel restricted by traditional public school and have dedicated the charter school to attain academic results for students that are not considered likely or achievable in a traditional school setting.”
Is it true that charter schools are “normally” founded by teachers and/or parents? “Activists” is a pretty wide-ranging term and could include anyone from you, Diane, to Michelle Rhee, so I suppose that’s accurate, if misleading.
Not in my state, at any rate. In Utah, charter schools are primarily started by charter management companies, many of whom have connections to the state legislature. I suspect that this is similar in other states, as well.
I used to think that charter schools had some good ideas and could work on harmony with public schools. I was a fool. As I have watched my school get hosed by a charter school that was founded simply to be closer to the “select” community and allow students to never be exposed to those “others” that are poorer and minorities, I have lost all faith.
So for every anecdotal mention of a successful charter school by a deformer, an equal anecdote can be raised about an epic failure. Sounds as break-even as the overall results of charters. Still don’t understand how they are still selling?
Marketing, promotion, public relations, spin, hype, exaggeration, false claims, deliberate obfuscation. What more is needed to sell privatization?
Even if a particular charter school is “successful”, that’s no recommendation for charter schools. Why couldn’t they do the same thing(S) in the public schools? If, for example, a charter school is “successful” because it’s getting a lot more resources, has smaller class sizes, has a rich curriculum, etc., then do that in the public schools. If, on the other hand, it’s only “successful” because it kicks out all the low-performing kids, well, it’s obvious why that can’t be done in the public schools
The ultimate irony will be when many of these parents have to find a new school for their children because they “won’t be a good fit” in this school. Perhaps they will violate some obscure part of the Byzantine handbook. It will be too late though, there will be no taking their school back. You only get to pull the trigger once.